http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_Accident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_Accident

Wow, that was something! I have never heard of that story before. That would have been a great story for UM to have profiled although I guess it would just be speculation what really happened to them as it will probably never be known for sure.

Intriguing, indeed. My first guess would be some sort of animal attack that forced the people to abandon the attack. The same animal or group of animals would have been responsible for delivering the fatal blows to the three injured hikers.

After leaving the camp in a state of disarray, perhaps leaving some clothing and other items behind, there simply weren't enough "coverings" to go around. So, people starte ddying of exposure. When the first few died, the survivors ripped the clothes off of them, in order to try to come up with enough to keep the remaining survivors alive. However, even this effort was futile, and eventually all survivors of the initial attack died of exposure.

I've got no good answer for the radiation found, though. Of course, who knows how accurate the account on Wikipedia is --- even the encyclopedia's editors seem to have some questions about that.

I'm leaning towards a military experient with the KGB. This would explain the radiation and the hair turning white. As for the injuries, I'm not sure how to explain those as it's a mystery what they may have been working on, but anything is possible. So intriguing. After reading the Wiki article, I had to go look it up and found some more great articles.

Here is a Skeptoid episode (one of my favourite podcasts) on Dyatlov Pass Accident. Rational, skeptical and makes sense in the end. More, anyway, than aliens or foul play.

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/skeptoid/skeptoid-4108.mp3?nvb=20080728185559&nva=20080729185559&t=0de4ea81c0b832ced30fd

Here is a Skeptoid episode (one of my favourite podcasts) on Dyatlov Pass Accident. Rational, skeptical and makes sense in the end. More, anyway, than aliens or foul play.

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/skeptoid/skeptoid-4108.mp3?nvb=20080728185559&nva=20080729185559&t=0de4ea81c0b832ced30fd

Loved that podcast. I'll have to listen to more. I never thought of avalanches, but his methodology was similar to mine: trying to find likely explanations for the known facts.

That Skeptoid guy was full of it. His whole premise was based upon, UFOs don't exist, therefore there must be some other explanation, however far-fetched, that has nothing to do with them. He had ONE valid point--more information is needed to draw any absolute conclusion.

That Skeptoid guy was full of it. His whole premise was based upon, UFOs don't exist, therefore there must be some other explanation, however far-fetched, that has nothing to do with them. He had ONE valid point--more information is needed to draw any absolute conclusion.

Not really; his premise was, as any investigator's premise ought to be, "what is the most likely scenario here?" When you're trying to solve ANY mystery, you need to have an approach that will lead to an answer, and you need to be working within a reasonable framework. When someone turns up missing, police don't really consider ALL the possibilities - nor should they. They find out as much as they can and quickly establish a most probable scenario. If they didn't, how could one EVER rule out UFOs in missing persons cases?

No one has yet to produce any solid, incontriveritable proof of the existence of UFOs (or ghosts, or Bermuda triangles, etc.). Until they do, there is no reason to ever consider them as a possibility worth investigating in unexplained deaths.